AuthorTopic: The end of medium format ? (Read 59433 times)

I think what most people don't get is the numbers. If MF doesn't make sense for you, that doesn't mean MF will die. MF was always a minority in the global camera market and MF has been certifiably a niche market for nearly a decade. It doesn't need 10%, or even 1% of "photographers" - it needs a sliver of the market.

But things are not going well at all. profits are not high enough for development costs and as a result there is very little improvement in the MFD field.Adding 80mp to a system when it already had 60mp really makes little difference when it's on the same crappy body.

But things are not going well at all. profits are not high enough for development costs and as a result there is very little improvement in the MFD field.Adding 80mp to a system when it already had 60mp really makes little difference when it's on the same crappy body.

But things are not going well at all. profits are not high enough for development costs and as a result there is very little improvement in the MFD field.Adding 80mp to a system when it already had 60mp really makes little difference when it's on the same crappy body.

Hasselblad has not been profitable for quite some time hence the move by the new owners Ventiz Capital to try and leverage the brand namewith the crazy Lunar project.

Phase One on the other hand is a bit more grounded.

To look at the IQ/Credo compared to every other digital back...To look at the IQ/Credo interface compared to the interface on any Canon/Nikon...To look at an image from an IQ180 or Credo 80 and compare it to any other digital camera......and to conclude that there has been not R+D and no progress in MFD; that is just silly.

Regarding the body: DF+ is a nice incremental improvement. Nothing revolutionary. Then again can you tell me the huge improvements to the body element of the 5D3 over the 5D2? I think it's clear from the IQ and Credo that Team Phase One has some great R+D. Just because every R+D project isn't completed today doesn't meant they aren't being worked on aggressively.

Anyway, don't know why I bother responding to you. Your only purpose on this forum is to find ways to cast medium format digital in a negative light.

CCD-s are very simple devices. The charge from each sensor pixel is shifted out each pixel at a time. CMOS designs are much more complex. For each pixel there are a few gates and there are signal busses. Those components take up some surface, reducing the active are of the chip. CMOS designs normally have microlenses focusing light on the light collecting part of the chip.

Most logic circuitry is CMOS. A CMOS process can implement some logic on the chip itself. The Sony Exmoor design used Nikon D800 and Pentax K5 (among others) has an ADC (Analog Digital Converter) on chip for each column of pixels. That makes signal paths shorter and makes off chip pre amps and external ADCs unnecessary. So the chip will be more expensive, as manufacturing probably requires more steps and much higher precision, but much more of the functionality is on the chip.

An MF back with CMOS would move much of the electronics from the back on the chip. It would probably offer about two extra steps of dynamic range. Would it be cheaper? That depends on numbers.

By the way, Nikon does not produce their own sensors, just doing design. Production is by Renesas as far as I know. The new sensor for the Leica M is designed by CMOSIS but fabbed by STMicroelectronics. Sony has it's own fabs.

I was always under the impression that CCDs are much more difficult to make with more waste than a CMOS. This could be wrong info. But in any case, due to the much larger production of CMOS sensors worldwide, I would think it would be cheaper to contract the making of a 645 CMOS.

For CCDs, there are only two players, Dalsa and Kodak. For CMOS, we have Nikon, Canon, Sony, etc. Any of those players have a higher output than Dalsa. Also, with more companies, this could lead to more competitiveness for who gets the contract, helping to lower price.

In any event, I still would like to see a CMOS 645 back. With all factors combined, I think this would be cheaper, thus furthering the use and availability of MF. It just seems that the current model is precluding entry into this market until you are an established higher end photographer. By than, most younger shooters will already be dedicated to a system and reluctant to change. Also, having it cheaper would increase use by schools, making the teaching of technical cameras more applicable; now it seems to be "here is a film tech camera that you will never use professional and you will probably never be able to afford the digital version, so why bother to really learn how to use the thing."

I mean in the film days we had options. Not everyone could afford a Linhof, so Toyo View was a the way to go, espicially when starting out. Not it's $40K+, take it or leave it.

It would be great to see this section of the forum return to positive discussions regarding medium format rather constant “mine is better than yours” posts hijackings that are full of negativity and a showcase for constant reposting of the same images over and over. Earlier this year, FredBGG (using his real name) gushed over medium format and belittled DSLRs and Nikon’s D800 claims on another forum:

I cannot help but wonder how many people who read his comments on Model Mayhem opted for MFD because of the rantings of a self proclaimed star and mentor?

C’mon, Fred, give forum members a little credit for being intelligent enough to read, research and make our own decisions on the equipment we choose to employ. I really don’t believe we need a “savior” here.

A big thank you to guys like Doug, Yair, BC, Erik, Keith, Eric, Guy and so many others who put the information out that truly informs and helps.

To look at the IQ/Credo compared to every other digital back...To look at the IQ/Credo interface compared to the interface on any Canon/Nikon...To look at an image from an IQ180 or Credo 80 and compare it to any other digital camera......and to conclude that there has been not R+D and no progress in MFD; that is just silly.

Regarding the body: DF+ is a nice incremental improvement. Nothing revolutionary. Then again can you tell me the huge improvements to the body element of the 5D3 over the 5D2? I think it's clear from the IQ and Credo that Team Phase One has some great R+D. Just because every R+D project isn't completed today doesn't meant they aren't being worked on aggressively.

Anyway, don't know why I bother responding to you. Your only purpose on this forum is to find ways to cast medium format digital in a negative light.

It would be great to see this section of the forum return to positive discussions regarding medium format rather constant “mine is better than yours” posts hijackings that are full of negativity and a showcase for constant reposting of the same images over and over. Earlier this year, FredBGG (using his real name) gushed over medium format and belittled DSLRs and Nikon’s D800 claims on another forum:

I cannot help but wonder how many people who read his comments on Model Mayhem opted for MFD because of the rantings of a self proclaimed star and mentor?

C’mon, Fred, give forum members a little credit for being intelligent enough to read, research and make our own decisions on the equipment we choose to employ. I really don’t believe we need a “savior” here.

A big thank you to guys like Doug, Yair, BC, Erik, Keith, Eric, Guy and so many others who put the information out that truly informs and helps.

Wow you certainly did some digging!However if you look at the date the D800 was not shipping or had just started to. My post was based on the official sample images.That were really quite bad (technically). Here is one of the first images.

Flat greyish skin tones, kind of flat darks in the hair. Harly what one would expect to be compared to MFD.However it turns out that the shot was technically crap... just look at the levels.....

Right after I received some good files from a friend that had received one of the early D800 cameras I posted what I saw.But thanks for posting the link. It clearly demonstrates that I did not start out with a negative view of medium format digital.

This thread is clearly a discussion of comparison between the formats as the premise is an extensive article comparing the formats.And I give forum member and above all non forum members, but visitors credit... if they are reading they are doing their research.I also think that the opinion of photographers is as valid as that of dealers that clearly need to sell product.

But things are not going well at all. profits are not high enough for development costs and as a result there is very little improvement in the MFD field.Adding 80mp to a system when it already had 60mp really makes little difference when it's on the same crappy body.

Hasselblad has not been profitable for quite some time hence the move by the new owners Ventiz Capital to try and leverage the brand namewith the crazy Lunar project.

Phase One on the other hand is a bit more grounded.

small companies can only make small progress. There's no way around.It seems to me that small progress is not enough for you.Now, if we all agree to that point of view we all will end up with Adobe software and Canon and/or Nikon cameras.No, thanks!! I applaud every little company that makes special ("specialized" that is) equipment ... because they give us a CHOICE!If Adobe and Canon/Nikon would be the only choice, I'd go back to film ... seriously. Fortunately I don't have to because I (still) have a choice ...

small companies can only make small progress. There's no way around.It seems to me that small progress is not enough for you.Now, if we all agree to that point of view we all will end up with Adobe software and Canon and/or Nikon cameras.No, thanks!! I applaud every little company that makes special ("specialized" that is) equipment ... because they give us a CHOICE!If Adobe and Canon/Nikon would be the only choice, I'd go back to film ... seriously. Fortunately I don't have to because I (still) have a choice ...

Mc Donald's is not everyones taste ...

You make it sound as if without MFD the only thing left is Nikon and Canon???

I also think that most would agree that every camera maker on the planet has nothing to do with the crap McDonald's peddles.

of course my post was an intensification.Still ... MFD companies are very, very small companies producing highly specialized equipment in very low numbers (unlike all the other companies you've listed).You don't have to use their offers. But that doesn't mean their offers do not have a place.

In my opinion, I think there would be a nice sized market for a company to produce backs made with cheaper and easier to make CMOS sensors. With how close CMOS has come to CCD, I doubt many would be upset with the IQ.

There are two out-dated views of CMOS vs CCD there: lower cost and lower quality, or being "cheap" in both senses of the word. Early CMOS sensors were of lower quality due to worse noise, but technical progress has completely reversed the story on noise and on IQ in general. There is perhaps a cost advantage for very small and cheap "camera on a chip" CMOS devices for cell phones and such, where a single IC contains sensor, ADC, etc., whereas a CCD needs a couple of additional support chips. But there has never been any sign of a cost advantage in larger sensors.

If anything, the opposite seemed true at one stage: as Nikon and Sony transitioned from CCD to CMOS, the models with CMOS were the better and more expensive ones, while CCDs hung around for a while longer in the cheaper models with lower overall IQ.

And Leica's recent move from CCD to CMOS for the new Leica M camera should be the final evidence that switching to CMOS does not involve any sacrifice in IQ.

There are two out-dated views of CMOS vs CCD there: lower cost and lower quality, or being "cheap" in both senses of the word. Early CMOS sensors were of lower quality due to worse noise, but technical progress has completely reversed the story on noise and on IQ in general. There is perhaps a cost advantage for very small and cheap "camera on a chip" CMOS devices for cell phones and such, where a single IC contains sensor, ADC, etc., whereas a CCD neds a coiple of additional support chips. But there has never been any sign of a cost advantage in larger sensors.

If anything, the opposite seemed true at one stage: as Nikon and Sony transitioned from CCD to CMOS, the models with CMOS were the better and more expensive ones, while CCDs hung around for a while longer in the cheaper models with lower overall IQ.

And Leica's recent move from CCD to CMOS for the new Leica M camera should be the final evidence that switching to CMOS does not involve any sacrifice in IQ.

This is very true in the beginning , sounds like a epic movie or something but CMOS was really crap and you would have never wanted in a camera ever. Of course I shot digital well over 20 years ago and CCD was junk as well. But its market was for cameras and obviously they both have evolved to be much better and we are pretty damn lucky they did, it was really ugly back than. CMOS has completely turned it around to high end sensors and costs maybe only being huge quantities and small chips they still are probably cheaper but i would bet the same size as the MF CCD's than maybe the same costs. Something we really dont know since nothing is in the market at that size and on the sales racks. The issue I still have with CMOS as good as it has gotten and lets be honest the D800 E is pretty good but its not the same look as a CCD sensor. I keep going looking back in a circle and keep coming back to the same conclusion. I shot a ton of CCD sensors from Phase, Leaf,Leica's M8, M9, DMR to old Kodak 460's and even on occasion Hassy H backs and all of them seem to have better color, better tone and maybe the biggest thing a smoother looking film like palette . Now maybe scientifically that makes little sense and i wont argue the science of it all, you guys know that better than me. I go by what I see but even today the D800E does not look like my IQ 140 or IQ 160 backs I had. Its actually a pretty big gap in the area's I mentioned and I'll put my nose in here and say i am one hell of a great raw processing guru with C1 so it is not that, I can lets say for clarity work any file to look great. I want to make that clear its not the operator at fault here and all I'm saying about that end. The differences are there between CMOS and CCD and i cant seem to even convince myself they look the same. There is a term I use use and even lets say between my old P25 Plus compared to the 160 the P25 was ( My words) crunchier looking. But the CMOS is even behind that comparison in my view . It just is not as smoooooooooth looking. Not sure what it is but its there and it takes some work in processing to get it looking better. My final conclusions on that as good as the Nikons Vs the Phase and CCD company of backs the difference comes down to CMOS vs CCD . There are some other factors like size and such for sure. But I think there is a technical gap that CMOS cant cross over. Just my thoughts on it and end of day some scientific guy may say I'm dead wrong. Maybe so but there is something I am seeing that has no real answer for it except the different sensors.

want to make it clear i am only talking about the look of the file. You folks can argue till the cows come home about functionality and ergos. That is not what I care about its the output. BTW i still love the MF backs so even though I am short of not having one right now, I still miss the crap out of it because i believe it still is the better file.

Guy, My best guess about color differences is that it is a matter of choices in the color filter arrays, where there is a trade-off between better color accuracy and improved sensitivity (quantum efficiency).

At one extreme, small sensors for compact cameras seem to have higher quantum efficiency (like 60%) than SLR or MF sensors. This suggests that their color filters let through a wider spectrum of light, giving a greater overlap in the colors of light detected by the three different colors of photosite. This "chromatic promiscuity" probably reduces noise by detecting more of the available light, but at the cost of less accurate color.

My guess is that sensors for DMF go in the opposite direction, with CFA's designed with priority higher on color accuracy and lower on low-light performance even compared to more mainstream DSLR (and other ILC) sensors.

P. S. comparison between the new Leica M with CMOS sensor and the previous models with Kodak CCDs might be illuminating.

- large and bright viewfinder***- touch screen interface (some bodies); hard to find a system you can check 100% focus on faster on a specific part of the image than an IQ or Credo- tools like auto-horizon and auto-keystone which correct the level and pitch of the image in software based on the electronic levels in the back, making every horizon straight and every vertical parallel without manual tweaking- Flash sync speed with standard strobes rather than dinky flashes (up to 1/1600th)- More tactile lens response when manually focusing (large focus barrel, actual lens gearing*)- aspect ratio (some prefer 4:3 or 1:1, especially for verticals)- waist level viewfinder (some bodies) - ability to shoot vertical without rotating camera (some backs)- low ISO without ND filters (useful for dragging shutter in some styles)- ability to shoot film with same system as digital (some bodies)- ability to turn sensor on/off independent of the shutter/flash firing (allows to build up exposure with strobes without excessive ambient light, even in bright conditions e.g. interiors)- ability to crop a vertical and horizontal from the same frame (even 36mp in 3:2 is not enough for many applications when cropped to a vertical)- ability to use on specific legacy cameras (some folks just plain love Contax, Hassy 500)- ability to use on speciality equipment like Aerial, industrial, art-repro systems (obviously a niche)- ability to use on tech cameras like Arca, Cambo, Alpa---- rise/fall/shift/swing/tilt on every lens (if IC allows)---- fully mechanical/traditional shooting ---- extremely precise focusing for specific distances (some bodies)---- extremely precise focusing for hyperfocal distances (some bodies)---- absolute best glass, period---- ground glass (some prefer it regardless of other options)---- small/light pack size for a body and several lenses (depending on which body and lenses of course)- compatibility with view cameras---- close focus possible with many lenses, not just select macros---- rise/fall/shift/swing/tilt on every lens, not just select TS lenses---- ground glass (some prefer it regardless of other options)- less frequent updates required to stay competitive in image quality (we still have many happy studio shooters using H25 backs users, which at base ISO and in the studio easily beats a 5D Mark 3 which is many generations newer; I don't know many happy Canon 1D shooters)**- longer software support (original Phase One Lightphase from 1998 is still fully supported tethered in OSX 10.7 and Capture One 6, while the Canon 5D from 2006 isn't even officially supported tethered in LR4 or EOS Utility in OSX 10.7, nor 1Ds II in Windows 7 64 bit)- consistent shooting speed; an IQ or Credo can maintain it's frame-rate indefinitely with a fast CF card, any Canon/Nikon can shoot much faster but unless you restrain yourself you can easily hit a buffer and the camera won't fire when you think it should. The IQ or Credo will be slower (around 1.2fps for the 40mp model) but it is reliably consistent - you know when you can shoot next and can develop a rhythm.- larger bodies (for some this will be a big negative, but for others their hands are simply too large to comfortably use a camera like the D800, even with the optional vertical grip)- differentiation: like it or not, fair or not, some (both pros and enthusiasts) will want to have a camera that Uncle Bob does not own, and that Art Director John doesn't use as their point and shoot. - longevity/durability: some backs are built like tanks and have no moving parts. Anything can break, but the number of field-failures on a P1 back are very low.- interesting lens selections with unique looks (e.g. Mamiya 80mm /1.9, Zeiss FE 110/2)

*As opposed to e.g. the Canon 85/1.2 with fly-by-wire focusing and a dinky focus barrel**This is not just a question of cost since of course the 1D owner could have updated to a 1DsII and a 1DsIII and spent about the same; some photographers just dislike the hassle of switching cameras - new batteries, new chargers, new cables, new settings, new button locations, new software, new look (forcing them in some cases to expend time/energy getting the new camera to produce the look of the old camera). Some photographers love getting new gear, some despise it. ***I never understood why this isn't mentioned/discussed more often; you have to look through the viewfinder for nearly every frame you take - it's your portal to the world you are capturing.

The thread is titled "the end of medium format?". My answer is no.

I agree that it is not the end of medium format digital, but high end DSLR cameras have reached quality levels that are in the same realm for the lower end MFDcameras still made and very close to the high end ones. The big leap forward was the D800 with it's very big jump in dynamic range. Medium format has it's place. It has it's place with those that have affection for it and it has it's place in some specific areas of image making.However it's niche is getting smaller.

Let me elaborate on Doug's list:

- large and bright viewfinder******I never understood why this isn't mentioned/discussed more often; you have to look through the viewfinder for nearly every frame you take - it's your portal to the world you are capturing.However with the Phase One DF this large viewfinder is severely cropped with many of the backs. A 40mp sensor on a DF will need a mask and the image will not have the magnificationof a full frame sensor. So for most users the view finder will not me that large. Hasselblad on the other hand has a second prism option optimized for crop sensors.

- touch screen interface (some bodies); hard to find a system you can check 100% focus on faster on a specific part of the image than an IQ or CredoTouch screens are nothing unique. The Canon Rebel has one. Google is making a strong push into the camera market and has introduced large touchscreen androidbased interface on cameras from Nikon and Samsung. I think that we will see some interesting developments there.

As far as focus checking the implementation on the IQ backs is nice, but hardly state of the art as far as on camera image review goes.On the D800 you can zoom in with one click using the center button of the multi controller on the back next to the screenand in a beat navigate quickly to any point.But there more to it than that. When the camera zooms in it automatically zooms into the area of the focus point that was used for the shoot.And that is either a manually chosen point or the automatically chosen points.What is also nice about it is that you still have the regular zoom in button that zooms into the center of the frame.This is very nice for fashion work. Set you focus point on the face/eyes. Then review the photo. One button pops right to the face while the other to the waist.Here is what I'm talking about.

With the focus point chosen being the one with the green dot when you zoom in with the multi function center button the displayautomatically moves to the face. Using the regular magnify button is zooms into the center of the frame.

But there is more. If you are shooting fashion even with manual focus the camera will also zoom into faces using face recognition regardless of where the face is.It will magnify the face choosing a crop that shows eyes and mouth regardless of the size of the face in the shot. You can then go even closer with one or two clicks.And there is even more to it. If there are more than one model in the shot you can jump instantly through all the faces in the shot.Not only is this useful for checking focus, but also useful for quickly checking for closed eyes etc in a large group. This face recognition in review (playback) mode works without interfering with other review functions and it's invoked by the front wheel that normally controls aperture. It's a seamless thumb and index finger thing.

http://youtu.be/yNajUFMpISs Video of face recognition in review more. The photographer here is using low magnification setting.closer setting crops automatically to eyes and mouth/chin

What is also very handy is that image review on the d800 can also be diplayed on larger HDMI monitors, both off camera and on camera.With these you can also get focus peaking in live view before the shot is even taken. This is really nice when using tilt shift lenses.

- Flash sync speed with standard strobes rather than dinky flashes (up to 1/1600th)Contrary to what dealers and Phase One would lead you to believe High Speed Sync with strobe can be done with the D800.And it can be done at upto 1/8000th of a second.

Here are the numbers I get with my Elinchrom AS 3000 packs and s-heads.It's Elinchrom's top of the line fully asymmetric digitally controlled flash pack. It goes from 188w/s to 3000w/s total (as low as 64w/s if 3 heads are connected.

With the S-Head 1/1,600th has an aperture range from f3.5 to F16

With the S-Head 1/8,000th has an aperture range from f1.4 to F8

With the x 3000 N twin tube head using one tube 1/1,600th has an aperture of f2.8 at 188ws

With the x 3000 N twin tube head using one tube 1/8,000th has an aperture range of f1.4 to f8. However if I discharges the same 3,000 w/s total (2x 1,500) I could get F11So I get an exposure change by simply adding the second tube. This is because it speeds up the flash duration putting more of the light into the shutter scan time.

Nikon 85mm 1.4 is not fly by wire. Manual focus works mechanically and will still work even with the lens off the camera.You can also get Carl Zeiss fully manual focus lenses with traditional mechanical focusing.

- waist level viewfinder (some bodies)Phase One offers none, Mamiya only on the RZ and and it's full frame 6x7, not optimized for 645 or smaller sensors.The Hasselblad H is only really usable in horizontal. The Rollei with the right back has the best implementation.

There are however many ways to work with waist level viewing with a 35mm DSLR through live view.

One from Zacuto. Expensive, but really neat.

Flip out screens on many cameras, just add a loup.

Oh and the image isn't flipped horizontally.

Their is even wireless live view now for many dslrs:

Includes wireless remote camera control

- compatibility with view cameras---- close focus possible with many lenses, not just select macrosYou can use extension tubes with virtually any Canon and Nikon lens.

- low ISO without ND filters (useful for dragging shutter in some styles)Lowest ISO on the d800 is 50. Lowest ISO on IQ180 is 35. What is that? 1/3rd of a stop..... IQ160 is ISO 50. Some older backs go lower to 25Since when has putting a 1 stop ND on a 35mm DSLR been a problem?.

- consistent shooting speed; an IQ or Credo can maintain it's frame-rate indefinitely with a fast CF card, any Canon/Nikon can shoot much faster but unless you restrain yourself you can easily hit a buffer and the camera won't fire when you think it should. The IQ or Credo will be slower (around 1.2fps for the 40mp model) but it is reliably consistent - you know when you can shoot next and can develop a rhythm.

Based on this logic everyone should buy a slow car so you don't hit the car infront This really makes little sense. If someone can develop a rhythm that goes with a camera that is limited to one shot per second they can just as easilyshoot at that rythm with a faster camera.The B800 can keep going at 1 frame per second no problem at all. I would say though that it is a huge advantage to be able to shoot a burst of faster frames if something like a gust of wind blows the models cloths. With card write speeds of 1000x this is really a non issue.

The choice is much larger when it comes to Nikon and Canon. The selection is huge. I did love the Zeiss FE 110/2, but there are equivalentsfor the D800. Carl Zeiss 85mm 1.4, Nikons 85mm 1.4G. Regarding the selection:NikonZeissSchneiderSigmaand all the way over to the toy lenses from lens baby.Not to mention mounting MF lenses with adapters.

The announcement by Zeiss that it is developing an ultra high end lens like for high MP count DSLRs is very interesting.The optical giant has thrown it's weight behind high end DSLRs while no longer developing for MFD.

- larger bodies (for some this will be a big negative, but for others their hands are simply too large to comfortably use a camera like the D800, even with the optional vertical grip) Hmmm. I'm 6ft 4inch. I have size 14 shoes and hence large hands, 11 inch span, 9 inch from wrist to finger tip.Very hard to find gloves.I have no problem at all holding the Nikon D800 either with or without the vertical grip. Maybe Shaq?I'll hand him the camera next time I shoot him

...It clearly demonstrates that I did not start out with a negative view of medium format digital.

To me, it demonstrates that you bashed Nikon in a public way before you had sufficient information to be reasonably objective. You added a lot of noise on a matter before you actually knew what you were publishing. That type of information does not benefit research or the forum in which you posted it on.

To me, it demonstrates that you bashed Nikon in a public way before you had sufficient information to be reasonably objective. You added a lot of noise on a matter before you actually knew what you were publishing. That type of information does not benefit research or the forum in which you posted it on.

Regards,Ed

It was a discussion based on Nikon claiming MF quality and this was the sample image that we were all seeing at the time.

Sorry if I made the mistake of discussing the issue based on Nikon's Official sample images.....